Narrow-band chirp and tone burst auditory brainstem response as an early indicator of synaptopathy in industrial workers exposed to occupational noise

Cochlear synaptopathy and hidden hearing loss: a scoping review

PURPOSE

To identify the pathophysiological definitions adopted by studies investigating "cochlear synaptopathy" (CS) and "hidden hearing loss" (HHL).

RESEARCH STRATEGIES

The combination of keywords "Auditory Synaptopathy" or "Neuronal Synaptopathy" or "Hidden Hearing Loss" with "etiology" or "causality" or "diagnosis" was used in the databases EMBASE, Pubmed (MEDLINE), CINAHL (EBSCO), and Web of Science.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies that investigated CS or HHL in humans using behavioral and/or electrophysiological procedures were included.

DATA ANALYSIS

Data analysis and extraction were performed with regard to terminology, definitions, and population.

RESULTS

49 articles were included. Of these, 61.2% used the CS terminology, 34.7% used both terms, and 4.1% used HHL. The most-studied conditions were exposure to noise and tinnitus.

CONCLUSION

CS terminology was used in most studies, referring to the pathophysiological process of deafferentiation between the cochlear nerve fibers and inner hair cells.

Development and validation of a computational method to predict unintended auditory brainstem response during transcranial ultrasound neuromodulation in mice

BACKGROUND

Transcranial ultrasound stimulation (TUS) is a promising noninvasive neuromodulation modality. The inadvertent and unpredictable activation of the auditory system in response to TUS obfuscates the interpretation of non-auditory neuromodulatory responses.

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to develop and validate a computational metric to quantify the susceptibility to unintended auditory brainstem response (ABR) in mice premised on time frequency analyses of TUS signals and auditory sensitivity.

METHODS

Ultrasound pulses with varying amplitudes, pulse repetition frequencies (PRFs), envelope smoothing profiles, and sinusoidal modulation frequencies were selected. Each pulse's time-varying frequency spectrum was differentiated across time, weighted by the mouse hearing sensitivity, then summed across frequencies. The resulting time-varying function, computationally predicting the ABR, was validated against experimental ABR in mice during TUS with the corresponding pulse.

RESULTS

There was a significant correlation between experimental ABRs and the computational predictions for 19 TUS signals (R2 = 0.97).

CONCLUSIONS

To reduce ABR in mice during in vivo TUS studies, 1) reduce the amplitude of a rectangular continuous wave envelope, 2) increase the rise/fall times of a smoothed continuous wave envelope, and/or 3) change the PRF and/or duty cycle of a rectangular or sinusoidal pulsed wave to reduce the gap between pulses and increase the rise/fall time of the overall envelope. This metric can aid researchers performing in vivo mouse studies in selecting TUS signal parameters that minimize unintended ABR. The methods for developing this metric can be adapted to other animal models.

Can auditory brain stem response accurately reflect the cochlear function?

Auditory brain stem response (ABR) and compound action potential (CAP) recordings have been used in animal research to determine hearing sensitivity. Because of the relative ease of testing, the ABR test has been more commonly used in assessing cochlear lesions than the CAP test. The purpose of this experiment is to examine the difference between these two methods in monitoring the dynamic changes in auditory function after cochlear damage and in detecting asymmetric hearing loss due to unilateral cochlear damage. ABR and CAP were measured in two models of cochlear damage: acoustic trauma induced by exposure to a narrowband noise centered at 4 kHz (2,800-5,600 Hz) at 105 dB sound pressure level for 5 h in chinchillas and unilateral cochlear damage induced by surgical destruction of one cochlea in guinea pigs. Cochlear hair cells were quantified after completing the evoked potential testing. In the noise-damaged model, we found different recovery patterns between ABR and CAP. At 1 day after noise exposure, the ABR and CAP assessment revealed a similar level of threshold shifts. However, at 30 days after noise exposure, ABR thresholds displayed an average of 20-dB recovery, whereas CAP thresholds showed no recovery. Notably, the CAP threshold signifies the actual condition of sensory cell pathogenesis in the cochlea because sensory cell death is known to be irreversible in mammals. After unilateral cochlear damage, we found that both CAP and ABR were affected by cross-hearing when testing the damaged ear with the testing stimuli delivered directly into the canal of the damaged ear. When cross-hearing occurred, ABR testing was not able to reveal the presence of cross-hearing because the ABR waveform generated by cross-stimulation was indistinguishable from that generated by the test ear (damaged ear), should the test ear be intact. However, CAP testing can provide a warning sign, since the typical CAP waveform became an ABR-like waveform when cross-hearing occurred. Our study demonstrates two advantages of the CAP test over the ABR test in assessing cochlear lesions: contributing evidence for the occurrence of cross-hearing when subjects have asymmetric hearing loss and providing a better assessment of the progression of cochlear pathogenesis.NEW & NOTEWORTHY Auditory brain stem response (ABR) is more commonly used to evaluate cochlear lesions than cochlear compound action potential (CAP). In a noise-induced cochlear damage model, we found that the reduced CAP and enhanced ABR caused the threshold difference. In a unilateral cochlear destruction model, a shadow curve of the ABR from the contralateral healthy ear masked the hearing loss in the destroyed ear.